Wikipedia

Talk:Knik Arm Bridge

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Jmg38 in topic Outdated and incomplete
Learn more about this page

Current revision violates Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policies edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia could link to this article as an example of what to avoid in terms of neutrality policy. This article gives undue weight to criticism of the proposed bridge. In addition, the article's structure places criticism front and center, only later discussing potential merits to the project. An impartial tone is pervasive. The article also violates the good research guidelines, as it fails to discuss crucial topics such as the project timelines, accurate budget numbers, the statutory framework, or the legislature's rationale for creating the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority.

The introduction takes the shotgun approach - it blasts the proposed bridge for being unnecessary pork, while accusing Congressman Don Young of corruption. It implies that this a "Bridge to Nowhere." It suggests an alternative method of transportation rather than the bridge. If any of this content is even worthwhile to readers, it belongs in a Controversy section, not in the introduction. An introduction section should be brief and contain facts and figures. Here, that might include the current date of construction/completion, number of miles covered, locations of proposed ingress/egress points, etc.

The article continues by citing a few decades-old whackjob ideas in an attempt to link any Knik Arm bridge to the likes of Seward's Success, an absurd proposal from the early 1970s involving a domed community on the north side of Knik Arm. Seward's Success was never a serious plan, and it is irrelevant to this article about a modern bridge.

The "Idea" section fails to go into any detail regarding bridge studies or proposals. For example, it could cite economic data that the legislature considered before deciding to create the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority. Rebuttals to such studies could go in a controversy section. Yet the article does readers a disservice by discussing none of this. Rather, the article uses loaded language in opposition to the project.

"Criticism and Controversy" follows the threadbare "Idea" section. This is where the meat of the article is located, and of course, it's a broadside against the bridge. The highlight of this section is a quote from a US Senator calling the Gravina Island Bridge (in Ketchikan) a "monstrosity." Readers who are quickly skimming through the article might be misinformed by this, thinking the 2008 "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy focused on the Knik Arm Bridge, when in fact it involved the Gravina Island Bridge.

The only potential advantages of the bridge are contained in a "Support" section and a "Defending" subsection. This discussion is brief and entirely inadequate. Also, by classifying facts as "support" and "defending," the structure of this article itself politicizes the topic. This structure and language would be appropriate on the private website of project opponents, but not on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral.

This article needs extensive revision in content, citations, tone, and structure in order to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swehrung (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This project is most notable for the controversy surrounding it, so it doesn't seem to me to place too much undue weight on that aspect, but please feel free to have a go at fixing these perceived problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I made a pass at the intro.--agr (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't dispute that the article suffers from POV problems. However, your missive here on the talk page also suffers from same. The earliest published reference I've come across to the bridge was in the Anchorage Daily Times in 1957. It has been a frequent topic of conversation and published material, at least in Anchorage, ever since. I don't have easy access to that material right now, and seeing as how I'm leaving for Arizona soon, I'll have even less access until I return to Alaska. In the real world, I would be asking: "So, how much were you planning on paying me for performing this research, anyway?" On Wikipedia, however, those pesky AGF and civility things get in the way. Someone tagged as "citation needed" the statement regarding the creation of KABATA. I'm pretty sure that they could have found the answer themselves in barely more than the time it took to tag the article. The Alaska Legislature as well as several Alaskan newspapers have fairly extensive online archives. Unless this was yet another case of one editor trying to dictate what is and isn't their job to another editor.
The pro and con sections do read too much like what you would see in a newspaper article, and I agree that they could use some work. Like with the issue in general, I'm not sure that the history would be correctly represented when you compare the breadth of sources which exist in total with what can be easily found. Your statement that the Gravina Island Bridge controversy occurred in 2008 ignores the fact that most of what you refer to were political hit pieces on Sarah Palin. In reality, the issue was controversial in Washington, D.C. for several years before that, and controversial in Alaska for several years before D.C. picked up on it. I couldn't help but notice that far too many of the sources concerning the Gravina Island Bridge used on Wikipedia were of the aforementioned political hit piece persuasion. They give that article and related articles a degree of undue weight to the issue, to where someone with more knowledge (such as, for example, any well-read Alaskan who does not have a memory like a sieve) might wish to think of Wikipedia as something resembling cultural depictions of The Boy in the Plastic Bubble. This issue, as well as the Lynn Canal Highway issue and other related issues, suffer from POV problems on here to a noticeable degree. I guess it's what happens when you're dealing with a place where they quit building roads (apart from local roads) decades ago, due to politicians who are eager to cave in to outside (or Outside) pressure. I'm honestly amazed that someone hasn't flooded Wikipedia with POV-ish material about (originally) Frank Murkowski's and (recently) Sean Parnell's plans to build a road westward from the Dalton Highway in the North Slope Borough, which has been staunchly opposed by many residents in Barrow and Nuiqsut. Then again, Frank Murkowski's article has largely existed as a coatrack article for Lisa Murkowski, as Parnell's article has largely existed as a coatrack article for Palin's article.
A quick check reveals that your account was created two days ago, and that your contributions thus far amount to tagging the article for violating NPOV and discussing the issue on this talk page. That might cause other editors to believe that you are either a single-purpose account or a sockpuppet, especially given that you express such familiarity with neutrality policies, and perhaps not enough familiarity with anything else about Wikipedia.
This has been a production of Manifestos R Us [tm]. Next! =) RadioKAOS (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Any actual notable use of the moniker "Bridge to Nowhere" for this bridge? edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If the moniker "Bridge to Nowhere" has been notably applied to this bridge and not just the Gravina Island one, why does the reference for said moniker point to the web page of the opponents of the bridge (i.e. primary source of questionable notability and clear POV), rather than any actual secondary source coverage of anyone notable actually calling it this? The KABATA web site calls it "A vital project for today and generations to come" but we don't quote that, so why should the bridge opposition's moniker warrant a mention, unless there's reliable secondary coverage of someone notable calling it that? John Darrow (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I may have carried on to excess previously. The bottom line is that this article needs a going through. Perhaps tagging this for any appropriate WPs which support Future-Class may also help, so that people understand that it's a proposal and therefore prone to a certain amount of controversy.
The problem should be obvious. Alaska spent the 2000s with one controversial figure serving as House Transportation chair for six years, followed by another controversial figure being nominated by the Republicans to run for Vice President. This has produced lots of coverage, but I don't believe that anyone has cast a critical eye towards the neutrality of a lot of that coverage. See my earlier reference to "political hit pieces."RadioKAOS (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Knik Arm Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knik Arm Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Knik Arm Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knik Arm Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Outdated and incomplete edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

As per “Update” template added to top of article, it needs a major update. Article talks about decade old data as “current”. Article does not provide any new information, ongoing progress, changes to plans, status of controversial items. Article has local terms and acronyms, people and places, that have no meaning to average non-Alaskan reader.Jmg38 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is probably because as far as I know there has been no recent progress. The state of Alaska has the same problem as Venezuela, too much of the economy is based on oil sales, and the state has been ina profound budget crisis for several years now. Projects like this aren’t really being cosidered a priority at the moment. Alaska Dispatch News would be the place to look for any recent developments, if any. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
It appears ADN is now putting recent stories behind a paywall, but I found something very recent from Alaska Public Media, I’ll add that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ok, i’ve updated it with the most current information. I’m less concerned about the acronyms as they are all explained in the article text. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Beeblebrox, for the 15 edits producing a major cleanup. Much appreciated.Jmg38 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knik_Arm_Bridge&oldid=1195454636"